Hopefully that means Dromons will at least appear as their replacement.

"There are no two 'i's' but only one 'i' as we together are one."
Alexander the Great to one of his companions on why he spelled "hetairoi" that way on the road to Hellenize the known world without a ballista elephant, which would of made it so much easier.
Need a good laugh? Check this out: https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/albums/civ-6-leader-memes.173/
Also advocating for Mali and a Renaissance Era Pan-Italy for Civ 6.

The famous Hagia Sophia was built by the Byzantines, this great Cathedral should be their Unique National Wonder.

Playing as Byzantines a player should be able to pursue any victory type. Cultural, Military, Religious and even Scientific bonuses could be granted them by the designers because Byzantium excelled in all those fields.

I agree with the original post about them Rising and Falling a lot throughout their history.
They had too many enemies in the end, constant warring with muslims, pagans and fellow christians as well, pretenders to the throne fighting each other's factions, plague of Justinian, civil unrest (war), the infamous fourth crusade. Their lands (capital especially) were in an incredibly important and strategic location and thus often desired by others to take over. And so they fell for good in the end, pity that, but still, a thousand years worth of fascinating culture to read about.

P.S. If not Basil as the ruler, then Justinian I or Constantine the Great for sure. As Constantine, a male player would found his first city (capital) and name it after himself, kind of cool. (Constantinopolis - the Byzantine capital's proper name. I truly dislike Constantinople, same goes for Neapolis and Naples)

Wasn't that mostly because he was the leader of Byzantium at the time?

While I still do favor Basil II on a personal level, Alexios has some neat abilities he could go with. A Komnenos Restoration ability to grant additional era score during dark ages and bonuses during Heroic Ages would be pretty sweet, I have to admit.

Wasn't that mostly because he was the leader of Byzantium at the time?

Click to expand...

Harald was a member of the Varangian Guard as well. Harald ruled and lived after Basil II though but not by much.
P.S. I find it funny he has the Big Stick Policy as his agenda.

"There are no two 'i's' but only one 'i' as we together are one."
Alexander the Great to one of his companions on why he spelled "hetairoi" that way on the road to Hellenize the known world without a ballista elephant, which would of made it so much easier.
Need a good laugh? Check this out: https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/albums/civ-6-leader-memes.173/
Also advocating for Mali and a Renaissance Era Pan-Italy for Civ 6.

That’s likely true only for western historiography. The most iconic Byzantine emperor in areas traditionally within Byzantium’s sphere of influence is Constantine XI. Constantine XI has the same status in Greek folklore as king Arthur has in the English one; he is the alleged “marble emperor” who was saved by angels during the fall of Constantinople and turned to marble so one day he can wake up and take back the City. This is also the reason why in large the name “Constantine” is an immensely popular name Greece.

It wasn’t his own law code. What Justinian did was to have existing Roman law written down in official form. There are claims that Justinian instructed the scribes to make alterations, but a) these claims are rather speculative and b) even if they were definite, there is no clue as to what and how Justinian changed it, hence it could just as easily been Justinian removing laws or twisting them to serve his interests.

How would you personally define "Byzantineness"?

Also, Varangians are trademark Byzantine forces with no exact equivalent in any other state. Cataphracts as used by the Byzantines are close to carbon-copies of Sassanian cataphracts which in turn derive from Parthian cataphracts which in turn come from a variety of Iranic (mostly Scythian) tribes. Plus, as several previous posts suggested, the Varangians wouldn’t push out both of these, the dromon could easily remain the main Byzantine UU while the Varangians are leader-specific.

There’s definitely more to Basil’s story than those. I mean, the most (in)famous episode of his life was him being vindictive and cruel. If gouging the eyes of 10.000 enemy soldiers doesn’t make him at least a tad bit interesting, I don’t know what is.

We have got nothing but Theodora and Justinian thus far, it’s time for something new.

I'm skeptical on how certain that outcome would be, given there’s clearly a very intense interest in Alexios, Basil, Constantine XI etc in much of the “Byzantinophile” circles. But alright, I concede that your assertion is accurate for the sake of the argument. Then how much would you rely on that majority to have decided their preference based on having a wholesome picture of the comparison? Justinian is a famous Byzantine emperor even among people not necessarily verged in Byzantine history. There’s a very good chance that a considerable portion of that majority would be far less absolute on it if they have read the Alexiad, for example.

And we haven't even gone over Heraclius; his struggle against the legitimate emperor Phocas, his rise to the throne, his epic war against the Sassanids (including the recovery of the Holy Cross) and later war with the Rashidun Caliphate. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Heraclius, but he's definitely an interesting character with an intriguing life.

Click to expand...

To respond collectively to the above, (for various reasons I post on forums via my iPhone these days)...Constantine XI is nowhere near as well known as Justinian, so I don't see how his being iconic to select people really has any weight here. Justinian is deemed "the last Roman" and thus famous for having connections to the old Rome and the new Byzantium accordingly (though I can understand wanting an emperor who spoke Greek officially). If we get another Byzantine leader I don't mind, but the idea that somehow Justinian is overrated seems odd to me. Most people who know anything about him know of his victories and failures both.

Justinian's legal reforms (including his Code) had far more influence than you give them credit for. Aside from influencing everything ranging from the Napoleonic Code to European laws at large and laws outside of Europe, there isn't fairly substantive agreement that Justinian's 10-person commission that worked on the Code did make changes to the laws, by removing obsolete or contradictory laws, including specific edicts from past Roman emperors. Codifying all the previous laws in one place was a monumental undertaking due to the weight behind laws with such a long history.

Justinian also enacted his own laws, including the Novellae Constitutiones Post Codicem, and he and Theodora enacted numerous social reforms aiding women (harsher punishments for rape, allowing widows to keep the dowry, etc).

As to your point about the Code not being Justinian's, consider that while strictly speaking the entire Code wasn't his own, this makes sense--why throw out Roman laws that work when you can innovate by removing ones that don't and keeping those that do, adapted to new circumstances? And that's precisely what Justinian did with the Code. I sincerely doubt anyone in history has criticized law for not being "original" enough. Even Hammurabi's Code likely drew on antecedents. And for that matter, most laws did. That's how stability works, particularly with such dour but important things as laws.

Even the harshest critics of Justinian reluctantly admit the Code had influence and was one of his greatest achievements. It influenced and continues to influence public international law, and as earlier mentioned, influenced the laws of many European nations. Heck, it even influenced the Roman Catholic Church's canon law!

Byzantineness for me is a concept involving not taking Viking mercenaries turned palace guards (the Varangian Guard) and then calling them "trademark" Byzantine. Mercenaries-turned guards aren't an original concept, so I hardly see how the criticism of cataphracts being similar to Persian heavy cavalry helps you here. Furthermore, Varangian Guards were still Germanic housecarls, in function and culture (scroll down to "Function" and note also the berserkergang reference). That the Varangian Guard served a foreign lord is interesting, but in similar fashion, the Hunnic mercenaries with compound bows that served Justinian were not "trademark" Byzantine, even if Janissaries (foreigners raised as Muslim fighting forces) are trademark Ottoman for different reasons. If Byzantium lacks a cataphract, that would be the equivalent of Japan not having a samurai unit or Zulu not having Impi.

Basil II had significant achievements, but his cruelty may be one factor leading to another Byzantine leader being chosen. I would prefer Alexios to Basil II, but those fixated on Golden Age bonuses for Alexios need to note the possible risk of making potential leader bonuses for Alexios carbon copies of the nearby Georgian ruler's Civ bonus, lest we get another Cyrus/Chandragupta situation, or culture bomb copycat situation.

Heraclius had an interesting life to be sure, but the letter to Khusrau giving up Byzantine power to Persia smacks of immense, almost traitorous weakness to me. That Heraclius ultimately won after giving battle in desperation is indeed a good story, but he's still not as iconic or accomplished as Justinian.

I would prefer Justinian or Theodora in Civ VI, but would accept Alexios. I don't like Basil's ethnic wiping of the Bulgarians too much, and he smacks of a dour barbarian emperor to me, so I wouldn't want him in. Holding court in a suit of armor is a tad trite, no? Even though Theodora has been in Civ as Byzantium's main leader multiple times before (and Justinian once).

If Justinian is to lead Byzantium in Civ VI, his ability could revolve around bonuses for inspirations (alluding to the Code), his massive building spree, his religious zeal (he tried to clamp down on other religions like Judaism and frequently funded churches and sent out missionaries; incidentally two Nestorian monks who proposed smuggling silkworms in got approval and funding from Justinian, leading to the explosion of silkmaking in Constantinople). Byzantium's Civ ability could reflect the military and religious might of the Civ as a whole, while Justinian gets an agenda named "Renovatio Imperii": "likes those with high faith who follow his religion, and those with several conquests on multiple continents)".

Personally I think that a Unique Government Plaza would be good for them. In fact they might be one of the best Civs for that out of the ones going forward.

"There are no two 'i's' but only one 'i' as we together are one."
Alexander the Great to one of his companions on why he spelled "hetairoi" that way on the road to Hellenize the known world without a ballista elephant, which would of made it so much easier.
Need a good laugh? Check this out: https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/albums/civ-6-leader-memes.173/
Also advocating for Mali and a Renaissance Era Pan-Italy for Civ 6.

With Theodora, you can get away with her speaking a form of Greek, since she was of Greek descent.
But Justinian was pretty much the last Byzantine Emperor who knew how to speak Latin. Plus he was of non-Greek ancestry, either Illyro-Roman or Thraco-Roman.

With Theodora, you can get away with her speaking a form of Greek, since she was of Greek descent.
But Justinian was pretty much the last Byzantine Emperor who knew how to speak Latin. Plus he was of non-Greek ancestry, either Illyro-Roman or Thraco-Roman.

Click to expand...

Justinian knew how to speak Greek though (albeit with a bad accent due to his provincial origins). All the educated elite of Constantinople were meant to know Latin and Greek. When Constantine created Constantinople it was in a largely Greek-speaking area. Indeed, portions of Justinian's Code were given Greek renderings whenever ported to other provinces.

Justinian knew how to speak Greek though; all the educated elite of Constantinople were meant to. When Constantine created Constantinople it was in a largely Greek-speaking area.

Click to expand...

Then I guess he can speak medieval Greek with a Latin accent. But I know some people here who would like the Byzantine Civ to focus more on the later Medieval era though (Zaarin ). I tend to agree, I think the early 500s CE Byzantine Empire has received plenty of love from Firaxis for at least three games...

Then I guess he can speak medieval Greek with a Latin accent. But I know some people here who would like the Byzantine Civ to focus more on the later Medieval era though (Zaarin ). I tend to agree, I think the early 500s CE Byzantine Empire has received plenty of love from Firaxis for at least three games...

Click to expand...

Yeah, with Civ VI they may pick a different leader just for variety. That being said, I think Justinian's agenda would be easier to craft than say, Basil II's. Liking wealth would be more Mansa Musa's thing but I've seen people on this forum suggest wealth-loving as a Basil II agenda...in truth Basil II was good at preserving money but seems to have had no love of wealth as such, except where he could confiscate it from powerful domestic entities to pay for his pricey wars. Really, Basil II's agenda would be "hates Bulgarians". Alexios may have a better agenda opportunity--perhaps he likes those in Golden Ages? But that seems like an agenda another leader would have, and could result in wonky diplomacy (you aren't in a Golden Age Alexios, so why hate on me for not being in one now?)

Yeah, with Civ VI they may pick a different leader just for variety. That being said, I think Justinian's agenda would be easier to craft than say, Basil II's. Liking wealth would be more Mansa Musa's thing but I've seen people on this forum suggest wealth as a Basil II agenda...in truth Basil II was good at preserving money but seems to have had no love of wealth as such, except where he could confiscate it from powerful domestic entities to pay for his pricey wars.

Click to expand...

I think Justinian's reign was better documented than most of the Medieval Byzantine rulers (by writers like Procopius), so it's easier to create an Agenda for him. I don't mind him returning for Civ6. I still haven't made up my mind on who to vote for.

Yeah, with Civ VI they may pick a different leader just for variety. That being said, I think Justinian's agenda would be easier to craft than say, Basil II's. Liking wealth would be more Mansa Musa's thing but I've seen people on this forum suggest wealth-loving as a Basil II agenda...in truth Basil II was good at preserving money but seems to have had no love of wealth as such, except where he could confiscate it from powerful domestic entities to pay for his pricey wars. Really, Basil II's agenda would be "hates Bulgarians". Alexios may have a better agenda opportunity--perhaps he likes those in Golden Ages? But that seems like an agenda another leader would have, and could result in wonky diplomacy (you aren't in a Golden Age Alexios, so why hate on me for not being in one now?)

Click to expand...

I suggested before Father of the Army where he likes to have a strong standing military and would dislike anybody that has more military strength than him. That would make more since and leave the wealth for Mansa Musa.

"There are no two 'i's' but only one 'i' as we together are one."
Alexander the Great to one of his companions on why he spelled "hetairoi" that way on the road to Hellenize the known world without a ballista elephant, which would of made it so much easier.
Need a good laugh? Check this out: https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/albums/civ-6-leader-memes.173/
Also advocating for Mali and a Renaissance Era Pan-Italy for Civ 6.